Monday, December 28, 2009

In this post, written immediately after the first wave of TeaParties, I gave my initial impressions of the TeaParty Movement. I participated in some of the initial organizing of the nation-wide TeaParties so I was able to look at the movement from within and without. Not long after, I gave my thoughts on the what then looked to be the first steps of integration between the TeaParties and the GOP.

Seven months later, I have not seen any visible effort to integrate the GOP political establishment with the grassroots conservative movement. If TeaPartiers are waiting for someone to start something, somewhere, don't hold your breath.

My initial impressions of GOP pick-ups in the 2010 Federal elections are achievable. I believe the GOP can pick up 51 seats in the House, and at least six seats in the Senate. But the clock is ticking, and two-sided arrogance, or perhaps incompetence, stands in the way.

Since the Spring of '09, the conservative movement has solidified. We need to only look at Rasmussen to see that the nation is firming up along the conservative line. The TeaPartiers can have a positive effect on elections, as shown in the NY-23 election. But unless conservatives swing into political action, governmental change will not be maximized.

While conservatives were able to effectively support the conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, over the liberal Republican DeDe Scozzafava, they were unable to push Hoffman over the top in the special election. Why? Simply stated, it was possible for conservatives to post a win, but the effort to support Hoffman came only a few weeks before the election. Tactically, the TeaParty effort was superb, but from a strategic standpoint, it took far to long to organize behind Hoffman. By the time TeaPartiers had rallied, early voting and absentee balloting had started, and given the small margin of victory for the Democrat, those critical lost days may have cost Hoffman the election.

TeaPartiers are great at providing a last minute boost to fundraising and volunteer support. Rarely have we seen so few organizers raise more cash more quickly for a candidate. But last-minute efforts are not enough. Campaigns start months in advance of election day. Most candidate campaign staffs will start their master campaign schedule at election day and work backward to determine the master plan. It takes months, even years, to organize and run an effective campaign. The best political campaigns are (or at least should be) a thoroughly planned marketing effort. Bob McDonnell worked months to win the Virginia governor race. Wisely, McDonnell choose early to make a modern social media outreach, and was able to capture TeaParty support.

But the TeaParty movement cannot wait for candidates to seek them out. I contend that TeaPartiers do not want to wait for candidates, they to be part of the process right now. What stands in the way?

The Republican establishment has not yet embraced the TeaParty Movement in any significant way. Only a few elected officials interact with the TeaParty Movement. After speaking to a few Congressman, most are just now realizing the potential benefits of the TeaPartiers. The Congressmen are struggling on how to reach out to the TeaParties and integrate them into their campaign effort. Part of the struggle is that few, if any, sitting politicians can stand up to the withering idealogical scrutiny of these activist conservatives.

William F. Buckley's policy was that he would always support the most conservative electable candidate. He wisely recognized that idealogical purity has a place in elections, but in no means should be the only place in an election. My take is that TeaPartiers are repeating the NY-23 mistake, waiting for the perfect candidate while sniping at all others including those selected by the Republican Congressional and Senate Campaign Committees. Because of TeaParty complaints, the RCCC and RSCC have seen that supporting candidates in primaries may not be the best use of their assets, and are taking a more hands-off approach to the primaries because TeaParty leaders (if such animals exist) are constantly complaining about the candidates selected by these committees. But, as professional campaigners, it was essential for the RCCC and RSCC to get their organizations in order so they can swing into action early in the electoral process.

NEWS FLASH: 2010 election campaigns started months ago.

In Illinois, the primary election is February 2, 2010. As of this writing, there are 32 days before the election. As a new movement, it is incumbent on the TeaPartiers to get on board the train. Right here. Right now. We cannot wait for the professional GOP machine to reach out to us.

Whether we like it or not, at this moment in time, the GOP is the only game in town when it comes to providing infrastructure assets and the pool of most conservative electable candidates. Inter-TeaParty confusion and bickering is today having what may be a detrimental effect on maximizing conservative gains in 2010. I feel conservatives are spring-loaded to act, but are waiting for someone to pull the trigger.

Significant efforts are being made to plan new TeaParties across the U.S. While this should continue, local organizers should take a moment from their TeaParty planning to decide who should be supported locally. Spend some time figuring out how to support them. And then reach into the campaign with a plan on how you will support them.

The sclerotic political establishment is struggling on how to integrate you into their efforts. A local TeaParty can provide funds to your selected candidates (don't forget your local and county candidates), and more importantly you can supply volunteers. Imagine for a moment 200 TeaPartiers, instead of attending a TeaParty, instead descending on local neighborhoods, coordinated by a candidate's campaign, blanketing the precincts with door hangers. In one day, 200 people can walk a typical Chicago suburban Congressional district, while interacting with a large percentage of voters in places like shopping centers and grocery stores.

In order to be effective, the TeaParty Movement must accept a long-term strategic approach to influence the GOP. We cannot let this current election cycle pass if we want to stop the liberal assault on our freedoms. If we fail to act now, the movement may lose steam before it becomes truly influential. We must act now and support those Buckley-type electable candidates that are running hard in their primaries and November election bids. We cannot wait.

(The author of this post has given up on the TeaParty movement for this election cycle and is working for a candidate in a local county election.)

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

For years, I have been telling anyone that would listen that the global warming models are horrific. I have first hand knowledge of such modeling from my bygone days as an engineer, where similar models are used to predict behaviors of structures and materials and very complex systems. Such models are totally reliant on "boundary conditions" which are a series of assumptions that are made to define the environment in which you are modeling. Long explanation made short, if your boundary conditions are wrong, your model will never be able to correctly predict behavior. If your measured data is hosed, you can never check the accuracy of your model.

There is an easy check to see if you are in the ballpark with a model. If the element you are modeling actually behaves in the real world in the way the model predicts (say a structure under load and the stresses and deflections you measure during tests), you can have decent confidence level that your model can be used to predict other non-tested situations.

Moving on to global warming. The climatologists use the historical data to provide insights into the boundary conditions that are inputted into the model, then use the data again to check and see if you are modeling reality. Fudging the data changes the boundary conditions and the milestones that are needed to check the accuracy of the model. You can now see why corrupting the data, which the CRU scandal is exposing, has a twofer affect on the accuracy of the model.

Once you have created a climate model, running it allows the predictions of the model to be checked against past historical climate data. I have challenged several people to point me to one study where any of the dozen or so commonly used climate models accurately represents PAST behavior. Reiterating, not a single model I know of currently being used predicts the PAST, which has, and correct me if I'm wrong here, already happened. This being the case, the model doesn't have a chance in the world of being used to confidently predict the FUTURE.

So CRU is fudging the numbers being used to create a model, then fudging the numbers (again?) trying to show the models they use are accurate. Being kind, these people show a considerable lack of judgement, honesty and integrity. And let's not even go into their heavy-handed attempts to marginalize anyone bold enough to question their behavior.

One final thought; a comment I use to frustrate global warming fanatics. What is the perfect climate you are trying to create, and why? Who is to say that the climate of today is better or worse than that of the Jurassic era (where life flourished), or the Ice Age (where Homo Sapiens really took off), or whenever? Perhaps the climate is changing (questionable though that assumption may be) to be even more beneficial to mankind that it currently is. I can never understand the God-like understanding these people think they have.

The bottom line is I think these people, through their own arrogance, ignorance or political agenda, are simply trying to impose their view on others in the typical elitist manner always used by the left. I further think that they are really trying to achieve perfect weather and have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate. I suggest they move to San Diego.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Happy Cost of Government Day! Today, August 12, is Cost of Government Day (COGD), the day of the calendar year when the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government on the federal, state, and local levels.

COGD falls 26 days later than last year's date, and it's 23 days later than the previous all-time high of July 20, in 1982. There are numerous reasons for this explosive growth in government spending including TARP, the so-called Stimulus, and the big three auto "bailouts." If Congress and the President had not pushed for TARP, Americans would have celebrated COGD on July 25 rather than on August 12.

As your Congressman and Senators hold their town hall meetings this recess [questions to ask], you should ask them why you needed to spend 224 days working to pay off your share of government. You should also ask them if you've already spent this much time working to pay off government, why would you possibly want to spend additional days working for a government takeover of healthcare?

View the COGD report at www.CostofGovernmentDay.com and arm yourselves with the data to ask your representatives the necessary and hard questions about the astonishing growth in government. The report contains a state-by-state breakdown so you can find out how your state ranks by visiting www.CostOfGovernmentDay.com.

Friday, August 7, 2009

In order to assist interested parties seeking to read and review the health "reform" legislation (H.R. 3200) introduced by House Democrats, the Republican Conference has compiled a list of important page numbers and provisions in the 1,018-page "America's Affordable Health Choices Act:"

Page 30 - Section 123 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee") to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase-and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion

Page 116 - Section 221 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage

Page 139 - Section 245 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill-however, the bill includes no requirement for individuals to verify their citizenship or identity before receiving taxpayer-subsidized health benefits

Page 167 - Section 401 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health insurance-the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama's presidential campaign

Page 183 - Section 412 imposes an 8 percent "tax on jobs" for firms that cannot afford to purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions "at substantial risk of unemployment"- with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts

Page 197 - Section 441 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar "surcharge," more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama's senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs

Page 501 - Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain's National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000

Page 835 - Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled "TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES" to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi's promise that "We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House," and the President's promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Let's say you have six people over for dessert, and you have a delicious cherry pie. You slice it up into six pieces, serve it up with coffee and everyone is happy. Now let's say six more people suddenly drop by. You can slice up the existing pie into twelve tiny, unsatisfying pieces where nobody is happy, or you can bake another pie for the six newcomers. You have now bumped up against the Law of Pies.

Apparently, lawmakers do not understand the Law of Pies. You cannot satisfactorily feed six more people unless you have additional pie. You cannot just redistribute the pie you have to more people, you need more pie. The same is true for government spending.

Whether or not you agree with the spending on TARP, Auto Bailouts, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, ObamaCare, and the countless other spending priorities of the liberal agenda, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that there is insufficient Federal revenue to slice up to handle all of these new and expanded spending programs. There just ain't enough pie.

Liberals would say that the answer is simple, "Let's tax the taxpayers more and increase the Federal revenue." Nice try. There is a glaring problem with this approach, the Law of Pies stands in the way.

By taxing more, are we really increasing the size of the pie? Show me one main-stream economist (liberal or conservative) that does not agree with the proposition that if you take disposable income from people in the form of taxes, they react by investing and spending less money. The decrease in spending results in a decrease in the national GDP (the overall measure of the value of transactions in goods and services). So, while the Federal pie gets bigger, the GDP pie gets smaller at approximately the same rate. The size of the overall pie remains the same. Remember the reason for wanting the Federal pie to get bigger? It was so more people can eat the Federal lemon meringue. And like our example above, we end up trying to feed 12 people at the Federal dessert party with an overall GDP pie that formerly served six.

In the 1970's, Art Laffer proposed that "[t]he basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect." Simply stated, the arithmetic effect says that as tax rates go down, revenue goes down, and as tax rates go up, revenue go up. Superficially, this seems to make sense to everyone and it is the primary justification used by liberals when establishing tax policy.

Laffer's breakthrough is the concept of the economic effect. Laffer explained that if tax rates are lowered, people will act in their best self-interest. They will earn, invest and spend more money since the government would not be raking it in the form of taxes. This growth in consumer wealth, under the right conditions, increases the amount of money subject to taxes and, under the right circumstances, may actually INCREASE the amount of revenue to the government. The overall GDP pie gets bigger, and government receipts go up. Laffer's theory has been tested three times in modern history. Tax rates were lowered in the mid-20's, the early-60's and the mid-80's. All three intervals were times of significant growth in government revenues. Only profligate spending by legislators cause problems resulting in a deficit and its cousins, inflation and recession.

In 1993, Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco economist, offered an idea now known as Hauser's Law. Based on decades of data, Hauser observed that no matter what the tax structure, no matter how high or low the tax rates are, Federal revenue is about 19.5% of the national GDP.

Surprising?

Not really. The rises and falls in GDP correspond to the rises and falls of the amount of money subject to taxation. If more money is available to be taxed, the government will have increased revenue, as the GDP falls, government revenue falls. This observation is way more than just a restatement of Laffer's ideas.

Hauser's Law sends a strong message to legislators. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is, the government will generate revenue of about 19.5% of GDP. If legislators choose policies that decrease GDP, there will be less overall Federal revenue. If they choose policies that increase GDP, there will be more Federal revenues (Let's not even talk about fiscal policies of spending more than you receive, or the priorities of those expenditures.).

The long-standing economic assumption of Laffer and others is that people act in their own best interests and that GDP will rise and fall as a function of the environment established by the government. It is clear that the more money that remains in people's hands results in more money available for government to tax, and the higher the available Federal revenues. If spent wisely, sufficient revenues are available for the necessary operation of government.

People like investors, and businessmen, entrepreneurs and inventors create wealth. It is these people, spurred on by innovation and consumer spending that control the size of the pie. Government does not create, it redistributes. Government does not bake pie, it slices up what is available. Government consumes pie, and consumes it with a voracious appetite.

Legislators must realize that no matter what the tax rate, they will have only about 19.5% of GDP in Federal revenues to spend. Any policy (on taxes or other priorities) politicians make that reduces GDP (like the Nixon Wage-Price controls and the Obama Cap and Trade proposal) shrinks the pie and ultimately hamstrings politician's ability to push their political agenda, no matter what it is. The bigger the agenda, the more revenue needed and the more economic growth must be stimulated. Our lesson here is that if you want government to spend money, you must want the government to create an environment of incentives that spur economic growth.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have an understanding of these simple economic concepts.

Democrats are feasting on a large menu of their own creation (whether or not you agree with the selections), and it would seem they demand a piece of your pie for dessert. They obviously don't know they need to get in the heat of the kitchen and bake more pie. They need to limit the amount of people at the party, as well as institute pro-growth initiatives. It's the Law of Pies.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Blue Dog Coalition defines itself as, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public." So where exactly do the sleeping Blue Dogs lie when it comes to the ratings of the American Conservative Union and the Americans for Democratic Action, respectively the prominent conservative and liberal ratings organizations?

Each organization selects a number of votes considered to be of paramount importance to their constituencies. They then track the votes of all members of Congress. Each organization uses 100 as the "perfect" score, with the ACU defining the "perfect" conservative, and the ADA doing the same for the "perfect" liberal. Using the latest published data (ACU, ADA), for those members of Congress present during the 2008 legislative session, we can calculate the bona fides of the Blue Dogs.

Blue DogACU Lifetime RatingADA 2008 Rating

Altmire, Jason (PA-04) 26.0080.00

Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)2.0090.00

Baca, Joe (CA-43)16.4490.00

Barrow, John (GA-12)41.0075.00

Berry, Marion (AR-01)36.8175.00

Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)32.3090.00

Boren, Dan (OK-02)54.2565.00

Boswell, Leonard (IA-03) 27.5295.00

Boyd, Allen (FL-02)35.5375.00

Bright, Bobby (AL-02)NewNA

Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)28.5085.00

Carney, C. (PA-10)24.0085.00

Chandler, Ben (KY-06)26.5085.00

Childers, Travis (MS-01)41.00NA

Cooper, Jim (TN-05)24.1760.00

Costa, Jim (CA-20)25.2580.00

Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)38.1080.00

Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)NewNA

Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)52.5480.00

Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)36.0070.00

Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)26.0075.00

Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)12.0080.00

Gordon, Bart (TN-06)28.7680.00

Griffith, Parker (AL-05) NewNA

Harman, Jane (CA-36)22.2395.00

Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD)41.1170.00

Hill, Baron (IN-09)24.5075.00

Holden, Tim (PA-17)40.2385.00

Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)NewN/A

McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)51.5085.00

Marshall, Jim (GA-03)47.1470.00

Matheson, Jim (UT-02)42.7555.00

Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)46.2280.00

Michaud, Mike (ME-02)16.0090.00

Minnick, Walt (ID-01)NewNA

Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)20.0075.00

Moore, Dennis (KS-03)17.1080.00

Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)8.0085.00

Nye, Glenn (VA-02) NewNA

Peterson, Collin (MN-07)45.4180.00

Pomeroy, Earl (ND)23.0885.00

Ross, Mike (AR-04)38.0085.00

Salazar, John (CO-03)27.0085.00

Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)3.33100.00

Schiff, Adam (CA-29)8.5690.00

Scott, David (GA-13)23.9295.00

Shuler, Heath (NC-11)5.9275.00

Space, Zack (OH-18)16.0080.00

Tanner, John (TN-08)41.4980.00

Taylor, Gene (MS-04)66.1175.00

Thompson, Mike (CA-01)11.3890.00

Wilson, Charles (OH-06)12.5080.00

Average29.0080.89

Unfortunately, even while there is some overlap in the issues used by each organization to rate Congressmen, each organization uses a different set of votes to do its calculations, and therefore it is difficult to directly compare ratings. But both sets of numbers allow trends to be identified. A Representative such as Jim Matheson, representing the relatively conservative second district of Utah comes in somewhere in the middle of the road in both ratings, while Loretta Sanchez, representing the relatively liberal Orange County stands out as a die-hard liberal in both ratings. Just for comparison, John McCain carries an 82.3 ACU rating and a 15.00 ADA rating, and while in the Senate, Barack Obama had an 8 ACU and 95 ADA rating.

We now know that Obama deserved his extremely liberal rating as we witness his attempt to overhaul the Constitution and change the American experiment to a collectivist path. Looking at the corresponding ratings numbers for the Blue Dogs, we see they are much more closely aligned to Obama than they are to McCain. While a small number of Blue Dogs are undoubtedly in the center of the political spectrum, as a group we must call them liberal and it is arguable that they are aligned closely to the center of America.

Paraphrasing Rep. Peter Roskam, the Blue Dogs are really just traditional Democrats by another name. The numbers seem to agree.

I invite you all to stare awhile at this slide that was prepared by the Joint Economic Committee Republicans. Even if this chart has been exaggerated, as Democrats claimed while censoring the franking privileges of Congressional Republicans, if one-half of the chart is true, a new burdensome bureaucracy will have been created that will drain your tax dollars.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

If ObamaCare is good enough for us, it's good enough for Congress and Federal Workers

Last week, I heard a Congressman discussing healthcare with one of his constituents. He pointed out that the Democrats in the House have repeatedly defeated Republican attempts to require Congress to have the same health plan as required by ObamaCare.

See how your health plan matches up with the Federal employee benefit plans.

Now you know why the amendments have been defeated.

Call your Congressman and demand that Congress lives up to the requirements of ObamaCare, just like the rest of us. Better yet, while you have him on the phone tell him to vote NO to socialized medicine, H. R. 3200.

Friday, July 10, 2009

For the next couple of weeks, I will be unable to post except for the odd short post, like this one. I am remodeling the house I am moving to, and it takes too much time to get the plaster dust off me to research and write. See you in August, sooner I hope.

Friday, June 26, 2009

On Fox and Friends Friday morning, Steny Hoyer, Democrat majority leader of the US House of Representatives, claimed the real cost of the 1200 page monstrosity known as H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey "The American Clean Energy and Security Act," (commonly known as Cap and Trade) would cost each American household $175 and would create American jobs.

Do not believe this assertion.

Numbers are the ultimate refuge of scoundrels, especially politicians. This $175 per household cost was generated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), sure enough. But you need to dig through the dry, dense prose of CBO report to understand exactly what the number means.

Undoubtedly, you will hear Democrats trumpeting this number all day, damped only by the news of Michael Jackson's death. The CBO number represents only the day to day operating costs of the program. The CBO number is only a snapshot in time, with the snapshot taking place in 2020, before the full impact of the Cap and Trade program hits America. The full impact of the Cap and Trade carbon restrictions take place AFTER 2020.

Worse yet, the CBO analysis does not include the effects of increased prices of fossil fuels. You know those increased fuel costs that energy utilities, oil companies and any manufacturer using energy or plastic in their products, will be passed directly to YOU, the consumer. From the CBO report:

"The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

So when the Democrats crow about the low cost of instituting Cap and Trade, they are not including the actual energy costs that you will pay as a result of this outlandish scheme to collectivize yet another part of the American economy, they are only telling you how much it will cost to administer and run that program.

One of the most broad economic analyses of Cap and Trade was performed by the Heritage Foundation. This conservative think tank analyzed the economy with and without the carbon tax being imposed by Cap and Trade. Heritage found that in the year 2020, where the CBO analysis shows $175 per household costs to only operate the program, the total economy would be depressed by something in the order of $161 billion, or roughly $1870 per household of four. This is the estimated increased cost of the energy you will be forced to pay. When all of the restrictions imposed by the Cap and Trade bill are fully enforced in 2035, Heritage estimates the household costs to be in excess of $6800 per year.

But there's more. Some areas of the US rely more heavily on fossil fuels to generate power, and those wide open spaces of the midwest and west mean that people and goods must travel large distances in cars and trucks. CBO estimates have been averaged over the entire nation, as is the Heritage number cited above. However while performing its analysis, Heritage was prescient enough to consider the geographical effects. Those areas more reliant on fossil fuels will have higher costs, while those areas serviced by wind, solar and nuclear power (currently a very small percentage of consumers because of the onerous environmental regulations surrounding these alternate technologies) will pay less. So if you live in areas with coal fired electrical plants, or areas where you need to drive a long distance to get to work or transport goods, expect to pay more.

If you don't believe the Heritage analysis, let's look overseas. Britain has had these types of taxes for a few years. The Taxpayers Alliance, a British think tank, estimates the current cost to British consumers is an additional $1300 per year. And in Spain, where government instituted regulations forced non-market driven green technologies into the country's economy, two "regular" jobs have been lost for each "green" job created, and those "green" jobs cost the Spanish taxpayer $1 million per job.

The Republicans have offered an alternative to the Democrat Cap and Trade proposal with little or no real costs, but there has been paltry little coverage in the MSM.

So today, you are going to hear a few things from Democrats. One is that Cap and Trade is relatively cheap. Another is that Cap and Trade is a job creating bill. Here are the numbers, you decide.

Monday, June 15, 2009

One may wonder exactly who are the "uninsured." The uninsured can be broken up into three major categories, those who are currently eligible for some government program for which they have not signed up (e.g. Medicaid), those people who have family incomes of over $75,000 who could afford a good healthcare policy if they so wished, and people who have entered and continue to live in this country illegally.

Let's look at the numbers:

U. S Population:307 million

Total Uninsured: 47 million

Not enrolled: 14 million

Earning over $75k: 10 million

Illegal Immigrants: 9.4 million

Using these numbers, one sees that there are 13.6 million people who are currently uninsured, or 4.4% of the citizens of the US. It is up to you to decide if the $1.4 trillion estimated to be required for an overhaul of the healthcare system is cost effective.

If you are "The One," when you say something, it must be so. President Barack Obama has touted the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation to be the centerpiece of his energy and environmental policy. Democrats claim Waxman-Markey provides a market based solution to the perceived problems in energy and the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. This scheme, cooked up by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, will do little more than drain the American economy and have a negligible effect on the environment.

Rasmussen reports that only 24% of Americans have even a remote idea that Cap and Trade refers to energy and environmental legislation. Fewer still understand the ramifications such legislation would have on the American economy while having little impact on global warming. Painting with a broad brush, Cap and Trade involves the Federal government establishing limits on an emitted substance (the Cap) which then issues allowances that various entities pay to obtain. Those entities can then use the allowance to "pay" for the right to emit the substance, or they can exchange the allowance with others (the Trade). (More information here) Since we are all too aware that all additional costs associated with any product or service are passed along to the consumer, Cap and Trade is nothing more than an elaborately hidden price increase, or tax, on all those who light their homes, drive to work, or use any plastic product.

Waxman-Markey will set off a trade war. It has been called by George Will the new "... Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930" which "ignited reciprocal protectionism that suffocated global trade and deepened the Depression." Will calls, "The cap-and-trade legislation passed recently by a House committee is Smoot-Hawley in drag: It contains provisions for tariffs on imports designated "carbon-intensive" -- goods manufactured under less carbon-restrictive rules than those of the proposed U.S. cap-and-trade regime. Eco-protectionism is a recipe for reciprocity." Goodbye American jobs.

Ultimately, the pressure of the caps are intended by their proponents to drive companies and individuals toward alternate energy sources. Nice try. There are very few sources of energy that can come close to meeting our existing and future needs for energy. Only fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) and nuclear power are currently technologically feasible to meet the demands of a modern economy. Fossil and nuclear fuels supply the U.S, with over 91% (70.4% and 20.7% respectively) of its electricity needs, with hydroelectric power coming in a distant third with 5.6%. The technologies involved to make a serious change in current power distribution (wind, solar, alternate fuels) are tens-of-years away from being able to make a significant dent in these percentages. Let's not even talk about transportation which is almost entirely dependent on oil.

Because of special interests, a regulatory labyrinth exists at all level of government that have prohibited for decades the construction of new refineries or nuclear powerplants. Those same special interests prohibit expansion of proven U.S. fossil fuel reserves (20.97 billion barrels of oil and 5.977 trillion cu m of natural gas) which makes us ever more reliant on imports from overseas. Our annual fossil fuel imports (about 3.5 billion barrels of oil and 31 billion cubic meters of natural gas) puts hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of governments and tyrants who may not necessarily have our best interests in mind. Our direct competition with other emerging economies like China and India for overseas oil sources drives up the price of oil. These emerging economies also are not encumbered by overburdening environmental regulations that allow their products to undercut ours in price. (Statistical source: CIA World Factbook and Energy Information Administration)

The Democrats' answer to the worst recession in decades is to introduce what amounts to a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and further job losses. Cap and Trade would cause gas prices and home utility bills to rise and deal American families an even greater economic hardship. Congress should be making every effort to leverage our proven reserves of fossil fuels and to take advantage of the new technologies in nuclear power generation. Sadly, the opposite is true. Instead, the Democrats offer thousands of dollars in extra energy costs and the potential loss of millions of jobs for an energy policy that will do very little to convert our national energy consumption and clean up our environment.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have cobbled together some of the better ideas on energy and the environment into "The American Energy Act." (.pdf download) This proposal is an "all of the above" approach that reduces the energy dependence of the nation and keeps more jobs here at home, all while providing for a cleaner environment.

Regulatory hang-ups are addressed. The proposal reduces red-tape and cost caused by the Environmental Protection Agency arising from having to endlessly identifying impacts and alternative locations for energy projects. It ensure proper environmental review while and curtailing the lawsuits that are designed to slow down and obstruct American energy policy. While ensuring people a day in court, expedited judicial review is required and all court cases are filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent "forum shopping".

Oil and gas reserves are expanded. Revenue generated by the sale of new oil and gas leases are invested in renewable and alternative sources of energy and also provides for tax incentives for energy conservation. Development of America’s alternative fuels is encourage by repealing the current prohibitions on government purchasing fuels derived from sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to liquid technology. Utilizing the vast coal reserves of the U.S. the plan also encourages the use of clean coal technology by allowing federal agencies to enter certain long-term contracts and loan agreements.

Oil refinery construction is increased by streamlining and accelerating the permitting process. The bill also instructs the President to convert at least three closed military installations for use as a refineries, including at least one suitable refinery of biomass to produce biofuel.

The Republican proposal establishes a goal to bring 100 new carbon-emission-free nuclear reactors online over the next 20 years. It does do by installing a new regulatory and permitting regime. This plan also address nuclear waste storage by reversing recent funding and regulatory decisions concerning Yucca Mountain located deep in the Nevada desert.

American ingenuity is tapped with a competition to advance R&D, pilot programs and commercial application of new and innovative energy technologies. a $500 million prize goes to the first U.S. automobile manufacturer to sell 50,000 economically feasible, fuel-efficient vehicles that get 100 mpg. Tax credits for the production of renewable electricity, like wind, solar, biodiesel and biomass are established, made permanent or expanded.

The bill provides tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency. It also extends tax credits for using energy efficient appliances and energy efficient upgrades made to existing homes, a tax credit for individuals who purchase a new energy efficient home and a tax credit for energy efficient commercial buildings, home energy audits and smart meters.

This Republican energy and environment plan is bold, broad and forward looking. It is grounded in what can be done, not on a Rainbow and Unicorns approach favored by Obama and the Democrats. We don't want or need a national energy tax. We don't want or need the loss of jobs to countries who use lower priced energy. We want to reduce our dependence on dictators and tyrants who hold the oil leach. We want to harness our own resources, including the ingenuity of the American people. The House Republicans have given us a great starting point.

Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.

Out of the $2,973,322 in contributions Microsoft made, $2,124,186 went to the Democrats, while only $844,586 was given to the Republicans. This comes out to about 71.4 percent and 28.4 percent, respectively.

Kudos to Microsoft for its wise decisions, I'm sure this will go over with those employees that get furloughed.

Barack H. Obama speaks in Egypt where he gives up principles of the United States, its moral clarity and its best ally in the region, Israel - Obama gets a standing ovation. George W. Bush gives a speech in Baghdad, and liberates 50 million Muslims during his tenure in office - Bush gets a shoe.

While in China, Pelosi addressed her Chinese hosts. "Indeed, protecting the environment is a human rights issue," she said. "We hope to send a clear message that transparency, accountability, enforcement and respect for the rule of law are essential if we are to protect our planet."

Pelosi's trip came just days after the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill that would establish a mandatory program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill requires factories, refineries and power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and six other greenhouse gases by roughly 80 percent by mid-century. Concurrently, the Obama administration ordered regulation of such emissions by cars and trucks. Pelosi promised the Chinese that U.S. climate legislation will pass this year the Congress this year. To accomplish these goals, Pelosi said, "Every aspect of our lives must be subject to inventory" in the fight against man-made global warming.

Friday, May 29, 2009

I would like to benefit from your experience by running the idea past you to see what you think.

I would like to help drive a one or two day event to discuss federal tax policy. I propose the main session to be a face off between Neal Boortz and Steve Forbes to discuss Fair v. Flat tax proposals, describing what are they, their benefits, etc. The event would be offered to CSPAN, and also streamed live over the internet, with questions taken from the internet and put before the panelists. A moderated live blog would gather the questions, also questions received via Twitter. I was thinking about someone like Saul to moderate the event. I would hope the RNC would participate to coordinate and fund advertising and marketing of the event, which I propose to be held just about anywhere other than inside the beltway. I do not see this any other RNC input other than getting to word out to the faithful.

Side sessions:

How to legislatively implement a new tax structure in place the current tax code, specifying what Ways and Means actions would be required. I know Peter Roskam who serves on Ways and Means, I could probably pester him to participate, and I am sure there are any number of legislators, lobbyists and legislative aides that could make the session worthwhile.

How to politically package and present a new tax structure to the electorate. Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Frank Luntz, Karl Rove

I would like to also make this event part of an effort to unite the Tea Party movement, the top conservatives on Twitter and the blogosphere, and the RNC. It would be nice to get these disparate groups united and focused on the 2010 elections.

Do you think this event would fly, and do you have any idea who would sponsor such an event, perhaps in conjunction with several others, with monetary support from various conservative organizations.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The Rule of Law and unambiguously defined constitutional principles dictate the actual administration of government.

Evidence of our lost freedoms is everywhere. We see local condo boards telling mothers they cannot display Service Stars for their kids serving in the military. We see municipal “preservation” boards telling homeowners what kind of shutters and paint colors they can use on their houses. State governments, county governments, regional governments, taxing authorities; endless multiple, overlapping, contradictory, levels of government; and any number of expensive, non-productive, confusing levels of bureaucracy through which you and I must slog on a given day. Lawmakers and unelected bureaucrats at all levels of official interactions are picking away at what little individual freedom we have left.

Every person in America is swimming in a deep and fetid pool of laws, codes and regulations created by individuals so arrogant they presume to know what is good for you, the individual. People who are so power hungry they will do anything to maintain their control over the agenda. And the biggest, smelliest pool, with the meanest critters is found in Washington, DC. There is no bigger threat to our freedom than the Hydra-headed monster that swims there.

I am no Constitutional scholar, and I did not even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I can say that I see a direct assault on our way of life with more freedoms being lost on a daily basis. Hundreds of thousands of pages of US Code of Federal Regulations, tens of thousands of pages dedicated to just taxes, each word created and endorsed by special interests. Is it any wonder we are confused, mad and upset? I refuse to believe we are fighting a hopeless battle.

ONE WORD: BETRAYAL

A political battle took place in the latter part of the 18th century. The Framers waged a great debate between those interests demanding a strong Federal government and those requiring power be devolved to states and individuals. Ratification of the Constitution was no slam-dunk. Led by famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry, who worried about an imperial presidency and excessive Federal power, several states withheld their ratification vote. It wasn’t until an agreement was reached to include Madison’s Bill of Rights to the document immediately after the Constitution ratification, that several states provided their votes. Arguably, the greatest achievement of the Framers was the balance struck in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That classic battle continues to be waged today, as competing interests and successive Legislatures and Executive Administrations fight to gather and exercise power. The election of the Democrats to Congress in 2006 accelerated the Federal Government’s grab for power as a weakened George W. Bush refused to veto legislation. Now with Barack Obama as president, we have seen the government reach into virtually every aspect of American life.

Congressmen and the Obama Administration are betraying their oath of office with each new law, regulation and action enacted that restricts the right of the individual in the pursuit of our natural rights.

Our liberty and rights are the underpinnings of governance in the United States.

WHAT TO DO?

We are starting to see the backlash.

Tea Parties have sprouted up all over the country. Hundreds of thousands of average citizens are voicing their displeasure with their government.

The switchboards and email in-boxes at the House, Senate and White House are awash with messages from angry constituents.

How do we unite these disparate organizations under one coherent plan to take back the government and return the power to the citizens, as the Framers intended?

Let’s unite behind the “sovereignty resolutions” and broaden that effort to have state legislators call for a Constitutional Convention. Conservatives of all stripes can unite behind such an effort. We will learn to work together with our state and Federal legislators. Even if a Convention call fails, we will send a powerful message to liberals in the Congress and the administration that we have had enough.

Monday, May 18, 2009

According to the Constitution, the Federal government has few powers. The Constitution only allows the Federal Government the only the execution of specific powers enumerated within the document, and leaves all other powers to the states, or the individual. One basic principle of the constitution prohibits the Federal government from telling a state how to govern its citizens. One example of a basic power that falls to the Congress is described in Article I, Section 8 that establishes a uniform law of bankruptcy across the U.S. (Congress defines the law in Title 11 of the U.S. Code).

Our constitutional law instructor president apparently has forgotten his lesson plans, or has made a conscious decision to ignore those basic tenants of the Constitution he sees inconvenient. Two recent examples of overreach by the Obama administration:

CALIFORNIA BETRAYED

California faces a $21 billion budget deficit. Its state government is working feverously to avoid bankruptcy. After months of bi-partisan effort, an agreement was finally reached by the duly elected officials of the citizens of California that trims healthcare costs and lowers wages of state employees, helping reduce costs and deficits.

Then the Obama administration got physical.

Citing a quietly inserted clause in the hurried passed stimulus package, Obama officials alerted California that it would be ineligible for $6.8 billion of federal funding. The stimulus package prohibited cuts in state funding to cities as a condition for receiving Federal funds. The Obama administration alerted California officials that it was interpreting this provision to mean that California state officials could not trim the wages of any state employee and still receive stimulus funds.

Attempting to receive clarification and find compromise, California officials, headed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, called the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, the agency tasked with oversight of these particular types stimulus funds. Surprisingly, and inappropriately, a third party was on the call, representatives of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Their own state employees had torpedoed California officials.

The Obama administration in a sop to a labor union, had preempted the decision making process of elected California state officials on how best to accomplish state goals, a clear violation of constitutional principles.

By the way, the SEIU contributed $33 million and countless workers to the Obama 2008 election campaign.

THE WHEELS ON THE BUS GO ROUND AND ROUND

After years of mismanagement, a shrinking economy has dealt a deathblow to Chrysler. After receiving $4 billion in Federal bailout money to tide the Chrysler over while it reorganized, the current owner, Cerberus Capital Management, refused to inject any further funds into the company. Neither could a new owner be found to assume Chrysler’s liabilities. This drove the struggling automaker into bankruptcy. In order to qualify for any additional Federal dollars, the Obama administration dictated that Chrysler undergo an arranged bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy proceedings, established by the Constitution, and governed and uniformly applied by U.S. code, say that those individuals and institutions holding secured credit (normally bonds) are the first to be paid. Bankruptcy law is clear and settled, its roots running back to the Magna Carta.

The White House-sponsored and negotiated settlement established that Fiat receives the company at virtually no cost. The United Auto Workers (UAW) receives about 50¢ on the dollar for the money it had invested, and secured bondholders are paid out only 30¢ on the dollar. The Treasury department has been quoted as saying that the UAW is an important component to Chrysler’s recovery. No argument there. But should the long established and well-litigated property rights of the bondholder shoveled aside?

The UAW contributed $4.9 million dollars to the 2008 Obama campaign and provided it with countless volunteers.

Chrysler's secured creditors may well have funded the bus under which Obama has thrown them.

A NEW THEORY OF GOVERNMENT

Centuries of settled law are now being questioned. Obama sends a new message to the world, “If you lend money to one of my favorite interests, I will wipe you aside with government intervention if I wish.” Is it any wonder that foreign governments are looking to replace our currency and reducing their investment in our country?

We are now seeing an Obama administration that no longer considers the rule of law to be the paramount consideration. Instead, Obama considers the rule of law just one consideration in his deliberations on how to proceed with his presidency. This is a nation founded under the rule of law, not by the rule of men. Obama has forgotten.

We are in danger of becoming a society no longer governed by dispassionate law, but by passionate men who provide payback to their political supporters. We are now being held at the mercy of Obama’s political objectives.

Obama shreds the Constitution by trumping the decisions of the states. Obama shreds property rights for his brand of “social justice.” He makes a mockery of bankruptcy laws. Politicians, on a whim, will now rewrite contracts. Obama, and his Congressional supporters, ignore the Constitution.

The Framers were so keenly aware that overpowering government was possible that in the first article of the constitution define the powers of government. The Framers felt so strongly about limited role of government that they immediately passed first ten Constitutional amendments to further define those limits.

Obama feels no limits. The Federal Government will tell us what to think, how to behave, how to live. Call your Congressman and stop this agenda. The insidious control being exercised by Obama and the Congress are stealing the single-most important thing we have in the U.S. – our freedom.